Allowed¶10

Ajruddin v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Apr 2025BAIL/6595/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ajruddin bail NDPS ganja 40 kg joint possession Hapur Gadhmukteshwar Case Crime 649 of 2024; Allahabad High Court Court No. 87; CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION 6595 of 2025; judge Avnish Saxena; bail is rule jail exception Balchand (1977) 4 SCC 308 Article 21; Gudikanti Narasimhulu (1978) 1 SCC 240; Mohd. Muslim (2023) 18 SCC 166 Section 37 NDPS rigour quicker adjudication; Section 50 NDPS compliance left to trial; no independent witness arrest recovery; no criminal history; charge sheet submitted; custody since 18.12.2024; bail allowed 21.7.2025 personal bond two sureties like amount; counsel Subham Singh A.C.Srivastava; G.A./AGA opposition.

What did the court decide?

Accused-applicant Ajruddin to be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Ajruddin vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Accused-applicant Ajruddin to be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant-accused Ajruddin, charged under Sections 8/20/29/37/60 N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 (Case Crime No. 649 of 2024, P.S. Gadhmukteshwar, District Hapur) after alleged joint-possession recovery of 40 kg ganja, should be enlarged on bail notwithstanding Section 37 rigours, given asserted absence of independent witness, claimed non-compliance of Section 50, no criminal history, submitted charge sheet, and custody since 18.12.2024.

¶4

Court's answer

Asserts as settled law, invoking Balchand (1977) 4 SCC 308, that bail is the rule and committal to jail is the exception; this premise governs the bail decision.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

Taking into account the rival submissions and record, and weighing the nature of accusations and evidence, severity of punishment, character and peculiar circumstances of the accused, likelihood of presence at trial, witness-tampering apprehension and public interest under the larger mandate of Article 21, the Court found it a fit case for grant of bail, expressly without expressing any opinion on merits.

¶7

Key takeaways

Adopts the principle from Mohd. Muslim ((2023) 18 SCC 166) that the rigour under Section 37 N.D.P.S. Act would not come in the way when the Court deals with the liberty of a person, as the greater the rigour, the quicker ought to be the adjudication; thereby the Section 37 bar does not preclude bail here.ratio¶8
On perusal of record: accused has no criminal history; charge sheet is submitted; compliance with mandatory provisions of N.D.P.S. Act is left for adjudication at the pending trial; applicant is in jail since December, 2024; accordingly, without touching the merits, the bail application is allowed.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Avnish Saxena, J.; Court No. 87; Order dated 21.7.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:118255) allowed CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 6595 of 2025 filed by Ajruddin, prosecuted under Sections 8/20/29/37/60 N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 in Case Crime No. 649 of 2024, P.S. Gadhmukteshwar, District Hapur, over alleged joint-possession recovery of 40 kg ganja among three accused. Counsel urged absence of any independent witness to arrest/recovery and non-compliance of Section 50 N.D.P.S. Act; noted co-accused Waseem had already obtained bail; no criminal history; applicant in jail since 18.12.2024; charge sheet stood submitted. Relying on State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308 (bail is the rule, jail the exception), Gudikanti Narasimhulu (1978) 1 SCC 240 (bail considerations under the Article 21 mandate), and Mohd. Muslim (2023) 18 SCC 166 (rigour of Section 37 N.D.P.S. Act not to impede liberty; greater rigour demands quicker adjudication), and observing that compliance with the mandatory provisions was matter for the pending trial, the Court, without expressing any opinion on merits, allowed bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:118255

¶2

Court No. - 87

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6595 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Ajruddin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- A.C.Srivastava,Subham Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit today in the Court, which is taken on record.

¶7

Rejoinder affidavit filed today in the Court, which is taken on record.

¶8

The present bail application has been moved by the applicantaccused Ajruddin for the offence punishable under Sections 8/20/29/37/60 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 in Case Crime No.649 of 2024, Police Station- Gadhmukteshwar, District- Hapur.

¶9

Sri Subham Singh, learned advocate, appears on behalf of applicant and contends that the recovery of 40 kg of ganja from the joint possession of three accused persons including the applicant. There is no independent witness of arrest and recovery. The mandatory provision of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act has not been complied. The co-accused Waseem has already been granted bail by this Court. There is no criminal history to the credit of the accused-applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.12.2024. As such, he prays that the accused/applicant be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the bail and submits that charge sheet is submitted against the accused-applicant.

¶11

Taken into consideration the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record.

¶12

It is settled position of law that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception as propounded in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308 , the Apex Court observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal

¶13

liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and opined para 2 "The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. We do. not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative." and considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, (1978) 1 SCC 240 larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/ State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.

¶14

In the case of Mohd. Muslim alias Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2023) 18 SCC 166] the Apex Court observed and held that the rigour under Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act would not come in the way, when the Court deals with the liberty of a person, as more the rigour, quicker ought to be the adjudication.

¶15

The perusal of the records reveals that the accused does not have any criminal history. The charge sheet is submitted. The mandatory provisions of N.D.P.S. Act are subject to adjudication in trial, which is pending. The applicant is languishing in jail since December, 2024. Without touching the merit of the case, this bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the accused applicant be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶17

Order Date :- 21.7.2025 Mini

¶18

(Avnish Saxena,J.)

¶19

Digitally signed by :- MINI KANAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ajruddin v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajruddin v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Manju Devi vs State of U.P. and Another

Kanchan Lata Saxena vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Satna Bind vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vikram Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and 3 Others

Indrapal Sharma vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gopal Prasad Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another